this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
438 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59312 readers
4649 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"There is no evidence to support that conclusion" is scientist for "no."
No, it's not. It's scientist for we don't know.
You're missing his point. It's not not knowing, it's "current empirical evidence points to X conclusion".
Science is always open to changing their conclusion based on new evidence. People take that as doubt while con-men bring them absolute answers with absolute confidence and mistake this for facts.
Exactly. Sorry if I expressed my thoughts all wrong. But that's what I meant, that science always awaits new evidence.
my reply had nothing to do with "that conclusion" so you are not making any sense.
edit: Its sad that even after saying it repeatedly people are still conflating not aliens with not real. just to show how asinine this stance is, consider that there was no evidence that the chinese balloon that was taken down was aliens. so according to your logic the balloon is not real, hopefully that contradiction activates some neurons on the people that still conflate not aliens with not real..
What is "real" for a UAP?
your comment basically confirms you did not read my previous comment where i shared an example that nasa disclosed with a link. there is even a non blurry video of one...
I'm asking you to define your term. It confirms nothing.
We have many documented UAPs that have no explanation. That's what he means by "real UAP."
"No evidence of aliens" is not scientist for "no" here because we do have an unexplainable thing that, in the set of plausible explanations, includes "aliens." NASA is saying there is no proof it is alien, so the entire set of plausible unexplained reasons is still in play
The way science works is we will slowly chip away at what that set contains.
Now stop being a dick.
Then why bother with the whole uap shit to begin with?
You don't see congressional hearings about "unexplained ancient phenomenon" for archeology sites or " unexplained underwater fornication" for unknown marine mating behaviors.
Of course there are some things that are unknown. But uap really mean "aliens" and we know it.
I'll stop being a dick when "ufologists" stop making a big deal about every fuzzy photo they can find.
Because UAPs represent everything from legitimate national security risks to funded programs with little or no oversight.
You're so bent out of shape with "NOT ALIENS OMG BRO" that you're not seeing the real-world impact.
You could just assume that actual, professional scientists know more than you do.
Oh, they do. And they say it's not aliens.
Show me on the doll where the UAPs hurt you lol
It’s not “my term” you can find the meaning of real in the dictionary.
What's wrong with you? I'm asking you to explain what you mean so that I don't misunderstand and misrepresent what your think. And this is how you reply? Forget it, you're not worth further replies.